SENIOR Republicans increased pressure on the White House to change its Iraq strategy yesterday by demanding that the Government of Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, should assume responsibility for securing the country.

Washington is to set Baghdad deadlines for disarming militias and taking control of its own security. The change in tactics comes amid one of the bloodiest months for US troops in Iraq for two years, with 81 killed, and an admission by the American military that a two-month offensive to stabilise Baghdad is failing.

Handing the Iraqi Government “benchmarks”, as Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary described them, shows just how far the political debate in Washington has shifted. Americans have lost faith in the war, and President Bush’s mantra to “stay the course” is being rejected by Democrat and Republican voters.

The desire in the White House to change the dynamic in Iraq has been sharpened by short-term political considerations, as midterm elections are two weeks away, and the longer-term realisation that a majority of Americans now believe that the war is being lost.

In a Newsweek poll released yesterday, 65 per cent of Americans say that the US is losing ground in Iraq. In other polls about two-thirds said that they disapproved of the war and that the invasion was a mistake. Next month, Republicans are in danger of losing control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate.

Publicly Mr Bush continues to declare that America will accept nothing but victory in Iraq. He said yesterday that Mr al-Maliki “has got what it takes to lead a unity government”. But the President added: “I’m not patient forever, and I’m not patient with dawdling. But . . . we won’t cut and run.” Privately, however, White House strategists concede that US troops cannot stay indefinitely and that a new strategy is needed.

The new policy, aimed at achieving conditions for a US troop withdrawal, largely reflects the views of the US public and moves closer to the stance of moderate Democrats. Most Americans still do not support an immediate withdrawal, but want a plan focused on reducing the American troop presence.

Mr Rumsfeld said that General George Casey, the commander of US troops in Iraq, and Zalmay Khalizad, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, “are currently working with the Iraqi Government to develop a set of projections as to when they think they can pass off various pieces of responsibility.”

Reflecting the frustration in Washington with Mr al- Maliki’s failure to get to grips with the armed militias in Iraq, Mr Rumsfeld added: “It’s their country. They’re going to have to govern it, they’re going to have to provide security for it, and they’re going to have to do it sooner rather than later.”

Bill Frist, the Republican Senate leader and a White House loyalist, told CNN yesterday: “Timelines in terms of milestones and goals do need to be set and are being set.” On talk shows yesterday senior Republicans for the first time said that Iraq was in a civil war.

Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator and Vietnam veteran who has long criticised the Administration over its conduct of the war, said: “The American people are no longer going to support a strategy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war.”

John Warner, the influential Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that setting the Iraqis a timetable to achieve security goals “indicated clearly” the Administration’s thinking.

“The key to this is impressing [on the Iraqi Government] that they have to get to grips on what is increasing this violence. It is their job, not US forces, to subdue these private armies.”

Times Recommends

• UN may halt 400-year-old 'freedom of the seas'
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone
• Gas deal on hold, but Ukraine may pay in the end